What should the USA ban?

[BDKJMU]

GD double post.

[BDKJMU]

Why do you feel the need to judge what a free person wants to legally possess...and what do you qualify as "an arsenal"...

I'm not for a ban on guns. However, the original intent on "right to bear arms" was due to the dangers of Indian attacks, hunting for necessity and the British army taking/banning weapons. In 1776 it was life and death. Times have changed, our attitudes and world has changes. Our laws must change. Changing a law isn't always a bad thing. Our constitution is an evolving document.

I don't own guns but I don't understand/see the point of having multiple handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc... I like target shooting and all but does one person need 5, 6, 7, 10 guns?

And I understand that the shooters in Portland and Newtown stole their weapons. The guy in Colorado legally procured them. It's not a slippery slope to legislate gun control and promote responsible ownership. However, the family must be responsible. If you have a child that has violent outbursts and a history of mental illness, it is stupid to own guns and train him to use it. :

If a sportsman has a few handguns (say a .22 and maybe a 9mm for target shooting/plinking, a .40 or .357 Sig for carry, maybe a .357 magnum or .44 thats around 4 handguns. A few shotguns (say a 12 gaue, a 20 gauge, and a .410) for shooting trap & skeet & hunting, maybe also for home defense, a few rifles, say a .22 and a few medium-large caliber, and say a muzzleloader, (all for target shooting and hunting) that could easily be a doz or more guns. Your typical avid sportsman will have at least around that many. And that doesn't even include if someone is into historical weapons like the M-1, 1911, and earlier, or inherited a bunch of weapons.

Yep, you don't understand.

[Ibanez]

I'm not for a ban on guns. However, the original intent on "right to bear arms" was due to the dangers of Indian attacks, hunting for necessity and the British army taking/banning weapons. In 1776 it was life and death. Times have changed, our attitudes and world has changes. Our laws must change. Changing a law isn't always a bad thing. Our constitution is an evolving document.

I don't own guns but I don't understand/see the point of having multiple handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc... I like target shooting and all but does one person need 5, 6, 7, 10 guns?

And I understand that the shooters in Portland and Newtown stole their weapons. The guy in Colorado legally procured them. It's not a slippery slope to legislate gun control and promote responsible ownership. However, the family must be responsible. If you have a child that has violent outbursts and a history of mental illness, it is stupid to own guns and train him to use it. :

If a sportsman has a few handguns (say a .22 and maybe a 9mm for target shooting/plinking, a .40 or .357 Sig for carry, maybe a .357 magnum or .44 thats around 4 handguns. A few shotguns (say a 12 gaue, a 20 gauge, and a .410) for shooting trap & skeet & hunting, maybe also for home defense, a few rifles, say a .22 and a few medium-large caliber, and say a muzzleloader, (all for target shooting and hunting) that could easily be a doz or more guns. Your typical avid sportsman will have at least around that many. And that doesn't even include if someone is into historical weapons like the M-1, 1911, and earlier, or inherited a bunch of weapons.

Yep, you don't understand.

I get it. You buy guns because you can and they have different uses. Don't talk down to me because you're a Butt hurt cunt. You bolivate on every topic as if you are a scholar. You're a Taliban, Tea Party fuck


Btw, I do own historical weapons but they don't fire.

[kalm]

Agreed. This could've been averted had Nancy chosen to not have weapons in a home with a violent, mentally unstable person. We have more punks than parents these days.

Same deal with Columbine. Ya know, I'm not sure what all the warning signs might be, bt when I notice my kids making pipe bombs, IEDs from propane tanks, and stockpiling ammo, I think I might step in and do a little parenting. I always thought the Klebold and Harris parents got off way too easy.

Fully agree on all of these.

[kalm]

Agreed. This could've been averted had Nancy chosen to not have weapons in a home with a violent, mentally unstable person. We have more punks than parents these days.

Same deal with Columbine. Ya know, I'm not sure what all the warning signs might be, bt when I notice my kids making pipe bombs, IEDs from propane tanks, and stockpiling ammo, I think I might step in and do a little parenting. I always thought the Klebold and Harris parents got off way too easy.

Fully agree on all of these.

[YoUDeeMan]

Btw, I do own historical weapons but they don't fire.

None of them fire themselves.

It's the person, not the gun.

[Ibanez]

Btw, I do own historical weapons but they don't fire.

None of them fire themselves.

It's the person, not the gun.

Agreed. The person is the problem and Nancy put the gun in her house with a violent child. However, to protect idiots from themselves we legislate, I.e, seat belts.

[DSUrocks07]

[Ibanez]

Those meme's are sometimes clueless.

Listen, anyone calling for a ban on all guns isn't realistic. Anyone calling for a collection of all weapons is delusional. I still don't see the need in having military grade weapons, especially if you live in the burbs and especially if you have violent, mentally ill child at the house.

[Wedgebuster]

I'm not for a ban on guns. However, the original intent on "right to bear arms" was due to the dangers of Indian attacks, hunting for necessity and the British army taking/banning weapons. In 1776 it was life and death. Times have changed, our attitudes and world has changes. Our laws must change. Changing a law isn't always a bad thing. Our constitution is an evolving document.

I don't own guns but I don't understand/see the point of having multiple handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc... I like target shooting and all but does one person need 5, 6, 7, 10 guns?

And I understand that the shooters in Portland and Newtown stole their weapons. The guy in Colorado legally procured them. It's not a slippery slope to legislate gun control and promote responsible ownership. However, the family must be responsible. If you have a child that has violent outbursts and a history of mental illness, it is stupid to own guns and train him to use it. :

If a sportsman has a few handguns (say a .22 and maybe a 9mm for target shooting/plinking, a .40 or .357 Sig for carry, maybe a .357 magnum or .44 thats around 4 handguns. A few shotguns (say a 12 gaue, a 20 gauge, and a .410) for shooting trap & skeet & hunting, maybe also for home defense, a few rifles, say a .22 and a few medium-large caliber, and say a muzzleloader, (all for target shooting and hunting) that could easily be a doz or more guns. Your typical avid sportsman will have at least around that many. And that doesn't even include if someone is into historical weapons like the M-1, 1911, and earlier, or inherited a bunch of weapons.

Yep, you don't understand.

Truth right there, I am no collector, just have some old family heirlooms that happen to be of some value, hunting units as you describe, a couple hand guns, and am way past a dozen. No way around it.

[GSUhooligan]

Serious question:
How do you gun enthusiasts view gun ownership? Would you view it as a privilege like a driver's license, or as a right? Is it a right that is treated by the government as a privelege?

I guess what I am interested in knowing is what it takes to purchase a gun. Different requirements for different guns in different States? And certifications, training, test, etc. required, or do you just prove you are not a felon?

The second amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

[GSUhooligan]

Nothing short of Orwellian government overreach could have prevented what happened. The gun was not an "assault rifle." The kid tried to buy a gun, but due to his condition could not. If his mother wasn't a gun owner, I'm sure he could have found someone who was. Do you think someone deranged enough to kill small children is above breaking into a gun shop or buying guns on the black market? Hell, if he's that sick and didn't have access to guns, he could have googled how to make bombs from household chemicals and the death toll could have been worse.

[Ibanez]

Nothing short of Orwellian government overreach could have prevented what happened. The gun was not an "assault rifle." The kid tried to buy a gun, but due to his condition could not. If his mother wasn't a gun owner, I'm sure he could have found someone who was. Do you think someone deranged enough to kill small children is above breaking into a gun shop or buying guns on the black market? Hell, if he's that sick and didn't have access to guns, he could have googled how to make bombs from household chemicals and the death toll could have been worse.

Let's not go off on "what if". Make decisions based on facts.

[CAA Flagship]

Serious question:
How do you gun enthusiasts view gun ownership? Would you view it as a privilege like a driver's license, or as a right? Is it a right that is treated by the government as a privelege?

I guess what I am interested in knowing is what it takes to purchase a gun. Different requirements for different guns in different States? And certifications, training, test, etc. required, or do you just prove you are not a felon?

The second amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

I realize that. I want to know how people view it. Obviously if you are a felon, you can't possess a gun. That makes it more of a privilege than a right, no? Kind of like a driver's license that can be taken away. But a driver's license is not listed in the Bill of Rights.

I'm splitting hairs here. But because guns are listed in the BoR, does it mean that it can't be treated like a driver's license? (testing, certification, training, etc.)
I'm just wondering if there is some middle ground that can be agreed upon that would be a more responsible position, "as a nation", than what we have today to keep the anti-gun crowd satisfied.

[Col Hogan]

The second amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

I realize that. I want to know how people view it. Obviously if you are a felon, you can't possess a gun. That makes it more of a privilege than a right, no? Kind of like a driver's license that can be taken away. But a driver's license is not listed in the Bill of Rights.

I'm splitting hairs here. But because guns are listed in the BoR, does it mean that it can't be treated like a driver's license? (testing, certification, training, etc.)
I'm just wondering if there is some middle ground that can be agreed upon that would be a more responsible position, "as a nation", than what we have today to keep the anti-gun crowd satisfied.

It's a right, like voting. It can be taken away by legal action only, not by administrative action like a drivers license...

[93henfan]

1. Lotteries
2. Greedy Relatives
3. Cyanide

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/justice/i ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[clenz]

Those meme's are sometimes clueless.

Listen, anyone calling for a ban on all guns isn't realistic. Anyone calling for a collection of all weapons is delusional. I still don't see the need in having military grade weapons, especially if you live in the burbs and especially if you have violent, mentally ill child at the house.

Who used a military grade weapon?

[houndawg]

What should they ban to keep all us safe and sound?

Wolf hunting.

[grizzaholic]

Looks like we have a judgement.

Anything that WHOMPS will be banned in the USA.

[Ibanez]

Who decides what does and doesn't Whomp?

[93henfan]

Who decides what does and doesn't Whomp?

Rhymes with PooperWhoreNet

[Ibanez]

Who decides what does and doesn't Whomp?

Rhymes with PooperWhoreNet

Don't be a SuperHornet. i won't attempt at figuring that puzzle out.

[mrklean]

Anything from New York City.

[Ibanez]

Anything from New York City.

[CAA Flagship]

Anything from New York City.

Except Pizza...........and the New York Yankees.